I've been aware of this issue for a while but I had not realized how far it had progressed until I just read the following article from last
Three of these states have taken this recording restriction a step further. According to McElroy, Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have
specifically made it "illegal to record an on-duty police officer even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists."
According to the source article, the states of Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts have made it illegal to record an on-duty police officer
if it is necessary to your defense, and even
if it is a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. That policy may
eventually extend to the TSA which will eventually be deployed at malls, train stations, bus depots, and highways; although they have already drafted
their own "law" to exclude videotaping when it interferes which their procedures, in other words - at their own discretion.
In this article, Are Cameras the New Guns,
the author comes to the following
In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in
prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the
police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple
My question to ATS - is how did this happen? I remember the arrest of the motorcycle driver for illegal wiretapping because he had a camera on his
helmet and posted his confrontation with an unmarked / unidentified police officer on YouTube but the state's Attorney General, I believe, said it
was utter non-sense. These stories though make it clear that it has progressed even farther and that depending on where you are, you might have no
defense to police abuse, nor could you come to another person's aid by way of posting the abuse without facing prosecution and abuse yourself.
As an American it is impossible to know the laws of every locality and state, especially when tens of thousands of new laws are being passed
and every year. How can I find out if I am passing through an area where the act of holding a video camera can get my face shoved in to
the pavement, harassed and abused for hours, and then my civil rights stomped on by a judge, sending me to prison for 1-3 years? At least the NAZI's
put up posters explaining new laws - these people don't even bother educating the public because their enforcers cannot even keep up - they apply the
law selectively when it suits them.
This is a clear sign that we are living in a police state. I just don't understand in what world these laws make any sense and what excuses did they
use to get it passed? I mean these laws have been through legislative committees, voted on before both sides of the state congresses, signed by a
governor, and upheld by the court system! Where was the public on these issues or were these passed under cover of darkness?
I believe we need a new civil rights movement
to put a stop to the forward onslaught against our civil liberties. We need a civil rights
movement to amend the constitution and to reassert that we do indeed want to live by the precepts set forth in the bill of rights and that we are a
free people and that we wish to uphold liberty above all else including security.
We need to reassert that the government:
- cannot introduce free speech zones,
- cannot conduct warrant-less wiretaps or other invasions of privacy,
- cannot deny citizenship based upon successful completion of mandated "civilian service" to the government as stated by Rahm Emanuel,
- cannot forcibly take our blood,
- cannot force injections upon us,
- cannot deny travel to citizens of the United States by requiring us to relinquish our inalienable right to be secure in our person and our
- cannot interpret probable cause to mean whatever they want it to mean and that illegal detainment and failure to prove probable cause is a
- cannot threaten arrest due to "public disturbance" unless the disturbance has been reported by other citizens and qualifies as an actual
- cannot declare martial law to violate civilian rights,
- cannot confiscate firearms because a state of emergency has been declared,
- can never confiscate firearms period,
- cannot declare war without prior-congressional approval,
- cannot deploy or use armed force against a foreign nation without an explicit declaration of war,
- cannot use armed forces in the United States in civilian operations or against civilians,
I'm sure for each of the hundreds of thousands of laws which have pushed us closer to the police state we can come up with counter-language for